Government considering raising motorway speed limit to 80mph 'toshorten journey times and help economy'

On 03/12/2011 09:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:23:53 -0700, Ashton >
> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 11, 3:00 am, Nate > wrote:
>>>> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> On 2011-03-10, Guy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. The only MVA
>>>>>>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>>>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
>>>>>>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
>>>>>>> beyond just drivers.
>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
>>>>>> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
>>>>>> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
>>>>>> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
>>>>>> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
>>>>>> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
>>>>>> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>>>>
>>>>> You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. Again,
>>>>> "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>>>>
>>>>> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Brent on this one. I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
>>>> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
>>>> or something. I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
>>>> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
>>> accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
>>> amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>>>
>>> Another dictionary result does allow it though:
>>>
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>>>
>>> 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
>>> cause.
>>>
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>>
>> the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
>> them all crashes instead of accidents. It's silly semantics and won't
>> do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
>> about themselves.
>
> I thought the point was to stop drivers who cause crashes from feeling
> better about themselves.

Exactly. That's my take on it, although I don't know if that was the
thought process behind the change or not.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 12, 7:12*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 09:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:23:53 -0700, Ashton >
> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> >> > *wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 11, 3:00 am, Nate > *wrote:
> >>>> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2011-03-10, Guy > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. *The only MVA
> >>>>>>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>
> >>>>>>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
> >>>>>>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
> >>>>>>> beyond just drivers.
>
> >>>>>> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
> >>>>>> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
> >>>>>> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
> >>>>>> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
> >>>>>> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
> >>>>>> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
> >>>>>> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>
> >>>>> You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. *Again,
> >>>>> "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>
> >>>>> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>
> >>>> I'm with Brent on this one. *I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
> >>>> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
> >>>> or something. *I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
> >>>> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>
> >>>> nate
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
> >>> accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. *No
> >>> amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>
> >>> Another dictionary result *does allow it though:
>
> >>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>
> >>> 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
> >>> cause.
>
> >>> Harry K
>
> >> the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
> >> them all crashes instead of accidents. *It's silly semantics and won't
> >> do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
> >> about themselves.
>
> > I thought the point was to stop drivers who cause crashes from feeling
> > better about themselves.
>
> Exactly. *That's my take on it, although I don't know if that was the
> thought process behind the change or not.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Change? I don't think there was one. They were known as accidents
when I was a kid back in the late 30s. That was in the days before
the 'safety mavens' entered the scene.

Harry K

On Mar 11, 9:23*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 3:00 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > wrote:
> >> >> On 2011-03-10, Guy > wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > wrote:
> >> >>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. The only MVA
> >> >>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>
> >> >>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
> >> >>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
> >> >>> beyond just drivers.
>
> >> >> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
> >> >> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
> >> >> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
> >> >> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
> >> >> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
> >> >> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
> >> >> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>
> >> > You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. Again,
> >> > "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>
> >> > Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>
> >> I'm with Brent on this one. I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
> >> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
> >> or something. I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
> >> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>
> >> nate
>
> >> --
> >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
> >accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. *No
> >amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>
> >Another dictionary result *does allow it though:
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>
> >3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
> >cause.
>
> >Harry K
>
> the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
> them all crashes instead of accidents. *It's silly semantics and won't
> do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
> about themselves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, it's a start but I doubt it will ever work down into the
vernacular.

Harry K

On 03/12/2011 12:34 PM, Harry K wrote:
> On Mar 12, 7:12 am, Nate > wrote:
>> On 03/12/2011 09:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:23:53 -0700, Ashton >
>>> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 11, 3:00 am, Nate > wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/11/2011 04:15 AM, Guy Olsen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-10, Guy > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 8:49 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Accident" and "preventable" are not mutually exclusive. The only MVA
>>>>>>>>> (not MVC) that is not an accident is an assault with a vehicle.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That does not, however, exonerate the parties at fault in *accidents*,
>>>>>>>>> nor relieve anyone of the obligation to prevent them -- and that goes
>>>>>>>>> beyond just drivers.
>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that way too many people in north america consider
>>>>>>>> traffic collisions to be something like bad weather. That they can do
>>>>>>>> nothing to prevent them only reduce the severity of the damage. This is
>>>>>>>> part of why we have absurdly low speed limits. Because of this nothing
>>>>>>>> is done about all sorts of horrible driving that puts vehicles on
>>>>>>>> collision courses. The mentality is ass-backwards and calling
>>>>>>>> collisions "accidents" is part of that mentality.
>>
>>>>>>> You are sure reading a LOT into a simple choice of words. Again,
>>>>>>> "accident" does not imply unpreventable, just not deliberate.
>>
>>>>>>> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
>>
>>>>>> I'm with Brent on this one. I'm sick of listening to people bitch about
>>>>>> having been in an "accident" like it's bad weather or a broken sump pump
>>>>>> or something. I *want* to say "you were in an accident because you were
>>>>>> a ****ty driver, you know" but sometimes that isn't PC.
>>
>>>>>> nate
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> While I agree that "automobile accident" in most cases is not an
>>>>> accident, it is the common term and is embedded in the language. No
>>>>> amount of pedantry is going to change it.
>>
>>>>> Another dictionary result does allow it though:
>>
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accident
>>
>>>>> 3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or
>>>>> cause.
>>
>>>>> Harry K
>>
>>>> the safety mavens at the fed and state level are switching to calling
>>>> them all crashes instead of accidents. It's silly semantics and won't
>>>> do a thing to change anything but it will make them all feel better
>>>> about themselves.
>>
>>> I thought the point was to stop drivers who cause crashes from feeling
>>> better about themselves.
>>
>> Exactly. That's my take on it, although I don't know if that was the
>> thought process behind the change or not.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Change? I don't think there was one. They were known as accidents
> when I was a kid back in the late 30s. That was in the days before
> the 'safety mavens' entered the scene.
>
> Harry K

The change is that OFFICIALLY they are not called "accidents" but
"crashes." It's one that I support.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>On 03/10/2011 11:50 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable. If you don't recognize
>>> that, then you are part of the problem.
>>
>> An incident which occurs due to error, preventable or otherwise is an
>> "accident".
>
>The word "accident," in common usage when applied to a traffic incident,
>carries connotations of a lack of fault. Therefore I do not like to use
>it, because it likely doesn't apply.

Whatever other word you choose will acquire the same connotations if
it catches on.

--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

Nate Nagel > wrote:
>On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Nate > wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>>
>>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>>
>>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>>
>>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>>
>> That's not what you wrote before.
>
>What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
>incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.

In the opinion of an irrational extremist.

>>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>>
>> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.
>
>I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
>infallible.

And yet you claim that you have no risk of being found at fault in any
accident.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

On 03/12/2011 05:46 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> Nate > wrote:
>> On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>>>
>>>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>>>
>>> That's not what you wrote before.
>>
>> What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
>> incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.
>
> In the opinion of an irrational extremist.

An irrational extremist is one who wants to protect the "right" of the
average American to put my property and life at risk due to negligence,
without meaningful penalty.

If you think I'm exaggerating, think about this. There were 10,111,000
police-reported crashes in 2008, approximately 90% of which were
passenger vehicles

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811368.pdf

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passeng....29_since_1960

"According to the Federal Highway Administration there were an estimated
196 million licensed drivers in the United States in the year 2003."

so basically for every 196 licensed drivers there were approximately 10
crashes. (I know, I'm not using stats from the same year, I'm doing
this Q&D. But I suspect that there were *more* registered drivers in
2008 than 2003, which would only help make my point.) Or in other
words, any registered driver has a greater than 5% chance of being
involved in a crash in any given year (probably somewhere between 5 and
10% because 5% would imply that every crash is a single vehicle crash.
10% would imply that all crashes were two-vehicle crash. IRL some
crashes involve MANY vehicles.) Or, the average American driver will
have a mean time between crashes of something between 10 and 20 years.

You don't find that appalling, unacceptable, and a sign of widespread
negligence? I certainly do, especially when I see drivers that I know
to be good drivers go 30, 40 or more years without crashing simply by
driving in a reasonable manner and paying attention. I hope someday to
be able to look back and add myself to that list of people.

>
>>>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>>>
>>> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.
>>
>> I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
>> infallible.
>
> And yet you claim that you have no risk of being found at fault in any
> accident.

No, I claim that I have never BEEN at fault in an "accident," and that
the odds of that happening in the future are not high enough to worry
about. I have control over whether or not I'm at fault in an
"accident." I can choose to pay attention and drive responsibly. I
suggest that you begin to do the same. Meanwhile, I'll save my worrying
for things like fire, flood, etc. that I don't necessarily have control
over, and concentrate on being a responsible human being.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote:
>On 03/12/2011 05:46 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Nate > wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what you wrote before.
>>>
>>> What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
>>> incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.
>>
>> In the opinion of an irrational extremist.
>
>An irrational extremist is one who wants to protect the "right" of the
>average American to put my property and life at risk due to negligence,
>without meaningful penalty.

You're a liar. There are already "meaningful" penalties.

>>>>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>>>>
>>>> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.
>>>
>>> I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
>>> infallible.
>>
>> And yet you claim that you have no risk of being found at fault in any
>> accident.
>
>No, I claim that I have never BEEN at fault in an "accident," and that
>the odds of that happening in the future are not high enough to worry
>about.

Wow. You really are an irrational extremist.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

On 03/12/2011 06:41 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> Nate > wrote:
>> On 03/12/2011 05:46 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>> On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>>>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what you wrote before.
>>>>
>>>> What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
>>>> incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.
>>>
>>> In the opinion of an irrational extremist.
>>
>> An irrational extremist is one who wants to protect the "right" of the
>> average American to put my property and life at risk due to negligence,
>> without meaningful penalty.
>
> You're a liar. There are already "meaningful" penalties.

Name one.

>
>>>>>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.
>>>>
>>>> I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
>>>> infallible.
>>>
>>> And yet you claim that you have no risk of being found at fault in any
>>> accident.
>>
>> No, I claim that I have never BEEN at fault in an "accident," and that
>> the odds of that happening in the future are not high enough to worry
>> about.
>
> Wow. You really are an irrational extremist.

No, just a careful, responsible driver.

Again, I suggest that you follow my example and become careful and
responsible, as clearly you are one of the masses who are not, otherwise
you would not be defending them so vehemently.

Are you reading these posts before you hit "send?" You sound like a
whiny, petulant little child. Grow up, take responsibility for your
actions, stop defending those who don't.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote:
>On 03/12/2011 06:41 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Nate > wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2011 05:46 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>> On 03/11/2011 11:16 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/10/2011 03:35 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 1:44 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2:19 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 9:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2011 03:19 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crazy anti-semite racist nazi who started this thread screeches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everybody MUST drive slower in order to save lives. I just point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that 35MPH is about the maximum safe speed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're planning on bumping into stuff, that may well be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to avoid bumping into stuff, and would really appreciate it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those that don't mind bumping into stuff were prohibited from driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and I don't mean just that their licenses were revoked.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Their"? Why not yours? Or do you believe that you're immune?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since a) I actually pay attention to what the **** I'm doing while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving and b) have only made one insurance claim related to a vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I owned, that for being hit while parked, and having been driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for something like 20 years now, I am confident in saying that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely in the "above average" category of driver.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And should you be distracted that ONE time and "bump" into something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then lose your car and your license as a result? Then what?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd deserve it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you believe that people should have their lives ruined for denting
>>>>>>>>>>>> another car.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a crazy extremist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> really? You feel that you have an inalienable right to damage other
>>>>>>>>>>> people's property and endanger them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really this stupid? People get into "accidents". They pay to
>>>>>>>>>> have the damage "repaired". Ruining a person's life because some
>>>>>>>>>> crazy extremist can't grasp those concepts is malicious stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that *I* am the
>>>>>>>>>>> extremist here,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you are, without a doubt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very few traffic incidents are accidents. The vast majority are due
>>>>>>>>> to driver error, and are easily preventable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just expect people to be infallible and destroy them when they're not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The insanity of the irrational extremist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I expect people to take due care in the operation of their motor vehicles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what you wrote before.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I wrote before was that penalties for being at fault in a traffic
>>>>> incident were not severe enough, which is also a true statement.
>>>>
>>>> In the opinion of an irrational extremist.
>>>
>>> An irrational extremist is one who wants to protect the "right" of the
>>> average American to put my property and life at risk due to negligence,
>>> without meaningful penalty.
>>
>> You're a liar. There are already "meaningful" penalties.
>
>Name one.

Civil penalties which hold the responsible party liable for damages
and criminal penalties.

>>>>>>> Unfortunately I apparently am the only one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're just an arrogant ass with delusions of infallibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm arrogant at times, don't particularly think I'm an ass or
>>>>> infallible.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you claim that you have no risk of being found at fault in any
>>>> accident.
>>>
>>> No, I claim that I have never BEEN at fault in an "accident," and that
>>> the odds of that happening in the future are not high enough to worry
>>> about.
>>
>> Wow. You really are an irrational extremist.
>
>No, just a careful, responsible driver.

And the first time you make a mistake you're going to cease driving
forever?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal